Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2017

13252462 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/252,462 10/04/2011 Sang Bum KIM 0203-0624 1306
68103 7590
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
EXAMINER
ELHAG, MAGDI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
u sdocketing @ j effersonip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANG BUM KIM,
SOENG HUN KIM, and KYEONG IN JEONG
Appeal 2017-006587
Application 13/252,462
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8—10, 12, 13, and 16—25, i.e., all pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Samsung Electronics
Co. Ltd. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-006587
Application 13/252,462
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention relates generally to
“a method for controlling a Minimization of Drive Test (MDT)
measurement report in a 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) system”
and more particularly to “a method for determining a message type for an
MDT measurement information report in a connected mode of a User
Equipment (UE).” Spec. 12.2 The Specification explains that the method
includes: (1) “receiving a terminal information request from a base station”;
(2) “determining whether the terminal information request includes an MDT
information request”; and (3) “transmitting the terminal information through
a first Signaling Radio Bearer (SRB) when the terminal information request
includes no MDT information request and through a second SRB when the
terminal information request includes the MDT information request.”
Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as
follows:
1. An information transmission method of a terminal, the
method comprising:
receiving configuration information related to a logged
measurement from a base station, the configuration information
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed October 4, 2011; “Final Act.” for the Final Office
Action, mailed May 6, 2016; “Adv. Act.” for the Advisory Action, mailed
August 9, 2016; “App. Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed November 1, 2016;
“Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed January 17, 2017; and
“Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed March 15, 2017.
2
Appeal 2017-006587
Application 13/252,462
including information on an absolute time related to the base
station, information on a duration related to the measurement
logging request to the terminal, and information on a
periodicity for logging the measurement;
transmitting a radio resource control (RRC) connection
setup complete message to the base station, the RRC
connection setup complete message including, if the terminal
has an available logged measurement generated based on the
configuration information, logged measurement available
information;
receiving a user equipment (UE) information request
message from the base station, the UE information request
message including a request for at least one of information on a
radio link failure (RLF) report, information on a random access
channel (RACH) report, and information on the logged
measurement;
identifying the signaling radio bearer (SRB) type to be
applied to a UE information response message based on
whether the logged measurement information is present in the
UE information response message;
transmitting the UE information response message on the
identified SRB type; and
discarding, if the UE information response message is
delivered, the logged measurement information,
wherein the UE information response message includes
the information on the absolute time related to the base station
and information on a relative time stamp related to the logged
measurement information, if the logged measurement
information is present in the UE information response message.
App. Br. 11 (Claims App.).
3
Appeal 2017-006587
Application 13/252,462
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejection on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Leeetal. US 2011/0195668 A1 Aug. 11,2011
(“Lee”) (filed Feb. 8,2011)
Wu US 2011/0312306 A1 Dec. 22,2011
(filed June 17, 2011)
The Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8—10, 12, 13, and 16—25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wu and Lee. Final Act. 5—14.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8—10, 12, 13, and
16—25 in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. For the
reasons explained below, we disagree with Appellants’ assertions regarding
Examiner error. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning in the
Final Office Action (Final Act. 2—14), Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2), and
Answer (Ans. 3—9). We add the following to address and emphasize
specific findings and arguments.
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims
1, 2, 4—6, 8—10, 12, 13, and 16—25
Identifying SRB Type Based on
Information in the Response Message
Appellants assert that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
“Wu fails to disclose determining an SRB type based on whether the logged
measurement information is present in the UE information response
message.” App. Br. 7—8. In particular, Appellants contend that Wu
4
Appeal 2017-006587
Application 13/252,462
provisional application 61/356,700 “merely discloses the feature of
determining an SRB type of a UE Information Response message according
to the information requested by a request message.” Id. at 7.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner does not rely on Wu provisional application 61/356,700 to
reject claim 1. Final Act. 5—8; see Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 3—4, 7—8. Instead, the
Examiner relies on Wu patent application publication US 2011/0312306 A1
(“Wu”). Final Act. 5-8.
The Examiner finds that Wu “teaches the SRB is identified based on
whether the response message will include logged MDT measurements or
not. . . .” Adv. Act. 2; see Final Act. 3, 6—7 (citing Wu 22—24,
Figs. 2—3). More specifically, Wu discloses a mobile device (user
equipment) that collects MDT measurements and communicates with a base
station through various Signaling Radio Bearers (SRBs), namely, SRB0,
SRB1, and SRB2. WuH 19, 21-23, Figs. 1-3; see Final Act. 3, 6-8, 10-11.
The base station requests an MDT log from the mobile device by sending a
UEInformationRequest message to the mobile device. Wu Tflf 23—24,
Figs. 2—3; see Final Act. 6—7. The UEInformationRequest message “may
contain [an] MDT log request and other information requests] .... e.g.
[for] a RACH report, or a REF report.” Wu 124, Fig. 3; see Final Act. 6—7.
The mobile device then determines the appropriate SRB for providing the
requested information. Wu 124, Fig. 3; see Final Act. 7. If the base station
requests an MDT log alone or an MDT log along with a RACH report or a
REF report (or both reports), the mobile device transmits a
UEInformationResponse message with the requested information on SRB2.
Wu 124, Fig. 3 ; see Final Act. 7. If, however, the base station does not
5
Appeal 2017-006587
Application 13/252,462
request an MDT log but just a RACH report or a RLF report (or both
reports), the mobile device transmits a UEInformationResponse message
with the requested information on SRB1. Wu 124, Fig. 3; see Final Act. 7.
Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the mobile device “identifies which
SRB to use (SRB1 or SRB2) based on whether the response message will
include logged MDT data based on the information request message or not.”
Final Act. 7 (citing Wu 124, Fig. 3); see Ans. 7—8 (citing Wu 124, Fig. 3);
see also Spec. 1 60, Fig. 6.
Response Message Includes
“Absolute Time” and “Relative Time Stamp”
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
the combination of Wu and Lee does not disclose or suggest “the UE
information response message includes the information on the absolute time
related to the base station and information on a relative time stamp related to
the logged measurement information,” as recited in claim 1. See App.
Br. 6—9; Reply Br. 2—3. In particular, Appellants contend that the disclosure
in Lee provisional application 61/356,019 is “irrelevant because [the]
provisional application . . . does not constitute [prior] art, as it is not
published.” App. Br. 7. In addition, Appellants contend that the provisional
application “fails to disclose anything about the feature of the reference time
and . . . merely discloses that time information can be included in an MDT
report.” App. Br. 8—9; see Reply Br. 2—3. Further, Appellants assert that
Lee published patent application US 2011/0195668 A1 (“Lee”): (1) “merely
disclos[es] that a single ‘reference time’ may be included in a logged
measurement report, [with] the ‘reference time’ being an echo of the
reference time sent by the base station in the MDT configuration message”;
6
Appeal 2017-006587
Application 13/252,462
and (2) “is silent with respect to information on the absolute time . . . and
information on a relative time stamp . . . being included in a UE information
response message.” App. Br. 7.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. Lee
incorporates provisional application 61/356,019 by reference. Lee 11; see
Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1335, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (concluding that
a later application incorporated an earlier application by reference). The
provisional application became publically available upon Lee’s publication.
See 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(l)(v)-(vi) (2011). Thus, Lee includes the
provisional application’s disclosure. See Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd.
v. Athena Automation Ltd., 838 F.3d 1236, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining
that material incorporated by reference may be considered part of the host
document). The provisional application instructs that “[t]he measurements
in measurement logs shall be linked to a time stamp.” Provisional
Application 61/356,019 at 4; see Final Act. 9; App. Br. 7; see also Lee 1126
(describing measurement logs including “time information”). Wu similarly
discloses that measurement logs include time stamps. Wu 123; see Final
Act. 8; Ans. 4.
Further, the Examiner finds that Lee discloses a “method and
apparatus of reporting logged measurements in a wireless communication
system” where (1) a base station sends configuration information to a mobile
device, (2) the configuration information includes a “reference time” of the
configuring base station, and (3) the mobile device repeats or “echoes back”
the “reference time” when reporting logged measurements in a response
message. Final Act. 9 (citing Lee 1122); Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 3, 9. The
Examiner also finds that Lee’s “reference time” corresponds to the claimed
7
Appeal 2017-006587
Application 13/252,462
“absolute time related to the base station.” Adv. Act. 2; see Final Act. 9;
App. Br. 8.
Because Lee (1) discloses absolute time related to a base station in a
response message and (2) Wu and Lee each disclose relative time stamps
related to logged measurements in a response message, the combination of
disclosures taken a whole teaches or suggests “the UE information response
message includes the information on the absolute time related to the base
station and information on a relative time stamp related to the logged
measurement information,” as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 8—9; see also
Final Act. 8—9.
Appellants assert that the references fail to “disclose the effect
provided in the present invention of clearly identifying the time
information,” i.e., “absolute time” and “relative time,” in a response message
to account for situations where the base station sending the configuration
information differs from the base station receiving the measurement log.
App. Br. 9; see Reply Br. 3. That assertion does not persuade us of
Examiner error because claim 1 does not recite the alleged advantageous
effect. See App. Br. 11 (Claims App.). Additionally, Wu discloses that the
base station sending the configuration information may differ from the base
station receiving the measurement log, e.g., by explaining that “reporting
may occur in different cells other than cell for which the . . . configuration is
signaled.” Wu 123 ; see Final Act. 8. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that
the combination of disclosures “provide[s] the same expected results or
intended use because of the fact that the reference time of the configuring
base station is sent to the UE and echoed back by the UE as part of the
reported measurements . . . .” Ans. 9.
8
Appeal 2017-006587
Application 13/252,462
Summary for Independent Claim 1
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for obviousness
based on Wu and Lee. Hence, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 1.
Independent Claims 5,9, and 13 and
Dependent Claims 2,4,6, 8,10,12, and 16-25
Appellants do not argue patentability separately for independent
claims 5, 9, and 13 or dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 16—25. App.
Br. 9; Reply Br. 3. Because Appellants do not argue the claims separately,
we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 2, 4—6, 8—10, 12, 13, and 16—25
for the same reasons as claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8—10,
12, 13, and 16—25.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
9